Today, we've learned that General Motors has priced the vehicle at "under $25,000" when tax credits are taken into account. In other words, we're expecting that the vehicle will actually priced at $32,495 before the $7,500 federal tax credit is applied.

For comparison, the Nissan Leaf and Ford Focus Electric are priced at $35,200 and $39,995 respectively before the $7,500 federal tax credit kicks in. Depending on where you live, the Spark EV might also quality for state tax credits/rebates that would knock the price down even further.

According to GM, the Spark EV features a 560-pound lithium-ion battery pack that is warrantied for 8-years/100,000 miles. This should be enough to give peace of mind to customers who plan on keeping the vehicle for more than the typical 5-year loan period.

The Spark EV will also be the first vehicle that features SAE Combo DC Fast Charging capabilities. This allows the Spark EV to reach 80 percent of its charge within 20 minutes. Getting recharging times down to reasonable levels is a critical in the adoption of electric vehicles in the U.S. and this is a much needed step in that direction.

“The Spark EV battery has undergone more than 200,000 hours of testing in our global battery systems labs,” said Pamela Fletcher, Chevrolet executive chief engineer of electrified vehicles. “It is extremely durable and has undergone the same abuse tolerance testing as the Volt battery.”

GM still hasn't provided us details on how far the Spark EV will travel on a charge, but we expect to learn more details closer to its Summer 2013 launch.

Numbers appear to be incomplete. Gasoline consumption isn't replaced by fairy dust, somewhere is (most likely) a gas or coal fired turbine powering the car. That's fossil fuels that also could just as easily be exported, if we wanted (I suspect Obama will block LNG export terminal certifications so to manipulate domestic prices, but we'll see).

Also somewhat questionable, the urban pollution claim. Ever been to Indianapolis? It always come to mind for me first since it's the most obvious I've ever seen, but powerplants tend to, you know, be close to power consumption. Which means next to, or often times inside, cities. (In Indy's case, it's a 1100MW or so coal plant, directly adjacent to downtown)

And then there's the range and utility issues with these cars. Do they really replace a car...... or do they end up just being commute cars, necessitating the existence of a whole second vehicle for doing real, longer drives or things that need more cargo or seating space? If thats the case, then we've just mined and manufactured a shit-ton of toxic materials just to subsidize a hippy fashion accessory.

And then you talk of payouts over 20 years. Very few vehicles are desirable that long. Not just wear and tear on the drivetrain, but technology in the dash, safety, wear and tear on the interior, etc. Attrition to wrecks, accidents, theft. Etc.

And then you equate the 150M to ALL the supposed benefits, as if thats the only cost. Did you forget the government is subsidizing, but not actually BUYING the car? The car owner is still ponying up significantly more. There's also the hard to calculate loss in consumer utility for such a limited vehicle. It's just all around not nearly that simple.

And it's cute you're trying to figure impacts on trade, too. If this ever became a big market segment, we could just as easily end up importing batteries and whatnot too, particularly sense we're becoming increasingly averse to mining.

And those are just some of the considerations that pop in to mind. But this is exactly why libertarians would say government needs to butt out; people like you always think you can know it all and calculate it all, and government always seems to manage to miss something and get hit broadside by unexpected, unintended consequences.

quote: We're borrowing money at negative real interest rates. This is a no-brainer investment, especially for the smaller tax credits of Energi plugins.

Because the Federal Reserve is buying the majority of our newly issued debt. How do you think that'll end?

Further more, if you ignore that and pop up to a 50k foot overview, a dollar consumed by government is a dollar that can't be consumed by the private sector. Something tells me the private sector could make better use of that money than some bureaucrat killing time, waiting for retirement to roll around.

Also, by your same logic, it'd be less painful to pay down debt/avoid more debt now than waiting until interest rates inevitably return to historical norms. And if we absolutely must spend the money, how about repaving some highways or something? Something that benefits all citizens, versus a tiny fraction?

No it couldn't, because EVs are charged at night when production is below capacity due to lack of demand (i.e. nowhere to export).

quote: In Indy's case, it's a 1100MW or so coal plant, directly adjacent to downtown

I don't know why Indy does that, but it's not common, and your point is irrelevant because virtually all additional generation will come from gas/wind. At night there is a huge amount of idling gas turbine capacity.

quote: And then there's the range and utility issues with these cars.

Not for PHEVs like the Volt. I admit that pure EVs have a limited market, but let them sell as much as they want.

quote: If this ever became a big market segment, we could just as easily end up importing batteries and whatnot too, particularly sense we're becoming increasingly averse to mining.

The rare earth argument, which you seem to be alluding to, is overblown. Tesla and Nissan don't even use any for their EVs. Nissan is expecting to reduce costs by building the 2013 Leaf in the US, so don't be so sure that building and shipping is cheaper elsewhere. A far greater percentage of world EV production is done in the US than general car production.

quote: Because the Federal Reserve is buying the majority of our newly issued debt.

No they're not. They bought under $1T of gov't debt since 2007, which has increased by $7T since.

$10T+ of debt held by the public is earning 0-1.5%. Banks have another $10T in deposits earning 0%. They have nearly $2T in excess reserves because they can't find safe avenues of lending (nobody can, hence the near zero interest rates). The federal reserve's purchases pale next to this $20T seeking safe assets, and thus had next to no impact on interest rates.

quote: a dollar consumed by government is a dollar that can't be consumed by the private sector

Pre-recession, you could make that case. Now, such a philosophy is dead wrong. The economy is entirely demand limited. A dollar consumed by the gov't is at most a few pennies that can't be consumed by the private sector. There is gobs of capital and labor sitting idle, looking for something to produce but to no avail.n Even when housing construction picks up in the coming year or two, there will still be plenty of labor and capital sitting idle.

quote: No it couldn't, because EVs are charged at night when production is below capacity due to lack of demand (i.e. nowhere to export).

Partly. They start charging when people get home from work, actually, according to research done and reported here at DT from Texas earlier this year, and create a new peak in demand as people come home, turn on the AC/heat, plug in the car and fire up the big screen TV. They foresee significant problems with the grid with even moderate market penetration for EVs.

On the other side of the coin, GE has started a trend of new gas turbines that are designed to spool up and down rapidly to match demand and fluctuating output from "green" sources. Once more widely adopted, then absolutely that's energy that could be exported.

quote: I don't know why Indy does that, but it's not common,

Because you don't leave your bubble doesn't mean that there arent powerplants all around. Some times if you're not looking close it's hard to even spot them, so you're forgiven. But I've never hopped on the highway, driven 10 miles out of town, and found powerplants built all out in the middle of no where,have you?

quote: Not for PHEVs like the Volt. I admit that pure EVs have a limited market, but let them sell as much as they want.

This isn't a PHEV, you're off topic. And absolutely let them sell all they want, without our tax money bankrolling it.

quote: The rare earth argument, which you seem to be alluding to, is overblown. Tesla and Nissan don't even use any for their EVs.

Motors that don't use them tend to be less efficient, but I was more thinking lithium and nickel, used in the 2 common battery types.

quote: No they're not. They bought under $1T of gov't debt since 2007

If you go back to 2007, that conveniently includes 2008 when they shed a lot of assets. You're vastly misrepresenting data, or don't get whats been going on more recently, or the full range of measures the Fed's using to quietly soak up treasuries (like paying interest on reserves).

quote: A dollar consumed by the gov't is at most a few pennies that can't be consumed by the private sector.

A dollar enters a bank, and is then..a) Loaned outb) Parked in short-term govt debt if core capital ratios need boostingc) Paid out as a dividend so the economy can do something with it if the bank has no profitable use for it

That's just how the world works. As to why companies are sitting on trillions of dollars, the fundamentals of the economy aren't too awful, they're just absolutely terrified to invest, thanks to the fiscal cliff, long-term fiscal deficits, regulatory cliff, Europe, and the rich-world suicide cult of politicians that, like you, refuse to recognize all of the above and can't seem to find a government program they don't like.

quote: And then you equate the 150M to ALL the supposed benefits, as if thats the only cost.

Fine, I was being a bit disingenuous with that, but I can't separate that objectively. I don't know how much of the $300M gas savings will be felt by the original buyers, because it depends on how much they drive before selling. Some of the premium they pay is for the silent ride, some for the novelty, some to be "green", and the rest for their chunk of the aforementioned savings. In any case, they are purchasing it with their free will.

Even if you say 6 years of those savings (avg new car ownership) are for the original owner to recoup the additional depreciation of a more expensive car along with the electricity cost, the remaining 60%+ are felt by the rest society and enough to justify the subsidy.

Average car lifetime is 15 years, so I'm not out of line by calculating it out so long when the drivetrain will have so few gas miles on it and low fuel cost.